On to the next topic: Editing software

[ReverendFuzzy]

so... what's everyone in this group using to edit thier videos?

I'm personally using a combination of...

Adobe Premiere Pro 7 (for video)
Adobe After-Effects 7 (for special effects)
and
Adobe Audition 3, and Audacity 1.3 (for audio)

.

[David Ruether]

"ReverendFuzzy" <goo...@msbministries.org> wrote in message news:
a88b4adc-7f8f-421c...@b20g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

Sony Vegas Pro here - for video editing, special effects,
and audio...;-)
--DR

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Just started learning Vegas Movie Studio HD, here. I've used Audacity
for just sound in the past, but Vegas may include better audio
capabilities.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Ruether]

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message news:
ylfkobu0...@dd-b.net:

> ReverendFuzzy <goo...@msbministries.org> writes:

> > so... what's everyone in this group using to edit thier videos?
> >
> > I'm personally using a combination of...
> >
> > Adobe Premiere Pro 7 (for video)
> > Adobe After-Effects 7 (for special effects)
> > and
> > Adobe Audition 3, and Audacity 1.3 (for audio)

> Just started learning Vegas Movie Studio HD, here. I've used Audacity
> for just sound in the past, but Vegas may include better audio
> capabilities.
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

Back before Adobe bought Cool Edit and renamed it and increased
the price astronomically, I used Cool Edit and liked it a lot
(and I still use it, although Vegas has numerous very capable
filters available within that program). Audacity has also been
a well-regarded audio program for some time. BTW, if you need
to EQ audio, take a look at "Track EQ" (one of about five EQs
in Vegas). It is easy to understand and adjust without "going
off the deep end"...;-) The comparison of the features in the
various Vegas versions is here --
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/moviestudiope/compare
--DR

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"David Ruether" <d_ru...@hotmail.com> writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message news:
> ylfkobu0...@dd-b.net:
>> ReverendFuzzy <goo...@msbministries.org> writes:
>
>> > so... what's everyone in this group using to edit thier videos?
>> >
>> > I'm personally using a combination of...
>> >
>> > Adobe Premiere Pro 7 (for video)
>> > Adobe After-Effects 7 (for special effects)
>> > and
>> > Adobe Audition 3, and Audacity 1.3 (for audio)
>
>> Just started learning Vegas Movie Studio HD, here. I've used Audacity
>> for just sound in the past, but Vegas may include better audio
>> capabilities.
>> --
>> David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
>
> Back before Adobe bought Cool Edit and renamed it and increased
> the price astronomically, I used Cool Edit and liked it a lot
> (and I still use it, although Vegas has numerous very capable
> filters available within that program).

I had Cool Edit back then, worked well for me.

> Audacity has also been
> a well-regarded audio program for some time. BTW, if you need
> to EQ audio, take a look at "Track EQ" (one of about five EQs
> in Vegas). It is easy to understand and adjust without "going
> off the deep end"...;-) The comparison of the features in the
> various Vegas versions is here --
> http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/moviestudiope/compare

Thanks. I need to start another project, the first one is pretty much
finished. Starting something new will be more educational than
increased polishing on the old project. Never did figure out how to
render something out of Vegas that would upload to YouTube -- which is
completely bizarre. It uploaded to Vimeo fine, so I'm just hosting it
there. Maybe eventually I'll figure out the secret to YouTube. I
uploaded three trivial videos years before, edited I think in Windows
Movie Maker, with no problem, it seemed trivial.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

[ushere]

+ 1 vegas pro

[Brian]

I have a 32 bit Windows 7 operating system so I can't run software that
needs a 32 bit operating system such as Adobe After Effects.
I use Sony Vegas.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> ReverendFuzzy <goo...@msbministries.org> writes:
>
>> so... what's everyone in this group using to edit thier videos?
>>
>> I'm personally using a combination of...
>>
>> Adobe Premiere Pro 7 (for video)
>> Adobe After-Effects 7 (for special effects)
>> and
>> Adobe Audition 3, and Audacity 1.3 (for audio)
>
> Just started learning Vegas Movie Studio HD, here. I've used Audacity
> for just sound in the past, but Vegas may include better audio
> capabilities.

There is book worth getting called "The book of Audacity". It will tell you
everything you need to know about this sound program. Your library might
have it.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

I found that the best format to use when uploading videos to YouTube is
wmv.
I had problems uploading high resolution videos 1920 x 1080 as they were
slow to upload and after a while they stopped uploading. So I now upload
videos that are compiled as 720 x 1280 in wmv format.
Try uploading the video by compiling it as a file first then log onto the
YouTube site with your web browser and click on upload file on the YouTube
--
Regards Brian

[Mxsmanic]

Sony Vegas Platinum 11. I had been saving up for Vegas Pro, but now that it no
longer supports XP, I'll be staying with Platinum for the foreseeable future.
If I could find a copy of Vegas Pro 10.0, I might buy that (it ran under XP),
but it seems to have rapidly disappeared. Sony made a significant mistake in
dropping XP support.

I have Corel Video Studio Pro X4, but I like Vegas better.

[Mxsmanic]

David Dyer-Bennet writes:

> Just started learning Vegas Movie Studio HD, here. I've used Audacity
> for just sound in the past, but Vegas may include better audio
> capabilities.

Vegas Movie Studio comes with Sound Forge Audio Studio (a light version of
Sound Forge Pro), which seems a bit nicer than Audacity, although the light
version has some limitatinos that Audacity does not (such as number of
tracks).

[Mxsmanic]

David Dyer-Bennet writes:

> Never did figure out how to render something out of Vegas that
> would upload to YouTube -- which is completely bizarre.

I render to Blu-ray 1920x1080/50i, with the MainConcept MPEG-2 encoding (one
of the standard templates), and the results upload very nicely, although the
files run about 200 MB per minute of video length.

[Brian]

I mean I can't run software that needs a 64 bit operating system.

--
Regards Brian

[David Ruether]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
57qeh71mp1js7ichd...@4ax.com:

Are you sure Pro 11 doesn't run on XP (I'd try downloading a trial
version of Pro 11 and seeing if you can load and run the 32-bit
version with XP)? If this doesn't work, Windows 7 may be the way
to go... BTW, I just looked these up, and Amazon has new copies of
Pro 10 for $529 at --

http://www.amazon.com/Vegas-Pro-10-Old-Version/dp/B0045IOLHG/ref=sr_1_1?s=software&ie=UTF8&qid=1326990872&sr=1-1
Pro 9 for $400 at --

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Vegas-Pro-Old-Version/dp/B001GM275C/ref=sr_1_1?s=software&ie=UTF8&qid=1326990537&sr=1-1
Pro 8 for $250 at --

http://www.amazon.com/Vegas-Pro-8-OLD-VERSION/dp/B000VVC01A/ref=sr_1_2?s=software&ie=UTF8&qid=1326990681&sr=1-2
There is also an upgrade from various versions of Vegas for $250 at --

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Vegas-11-0-UPGRADE-ONLY/dp/B005YUI0SK/ref=sr_1_1?s=software&ie=UTF8&qid=1326990967&sr=1-1
With a list of the programs you can upgrade from (some are cheap), at --

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=amb_link_358083942_1?ie=UTF8&hidden-keywords=B000VVC01A%7CB001GM275C%7CB0045IOLHG%7CB000IF640W%7CB003L51CZ8%7CB0051M6IPI%7CB003L4ZQKQ%7CB001CPHTAQ%7CB0051M6I9O%7CB002QWOKA6%7CB003L51D2K%7CB0051M6JZW%7CB00488284Q%7CB001CPFWH8%7CB001CPFWI2%7CB000AMO2I4%7CB000RLQNR6&rh=n%3A229534&page=1&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=hero-quick-promo&pf_rd_r=0GJBYVBRHXE8BC5ACR93&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=1331510882&pf_rd_i=B005YUI0SK
With all, be sure to download and install from
www.sonycreativesoftware.com
all available (free) updates for the program you choose after you
load the program.
--DR

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Are you in a PAL area? I wouldn't normally think of trying the 50FPS
encodings from North America. (Not that I know YouTube cares about
where you are! I'll give this a try.)

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>> Thanks. I need to start another project, the first one is pretty much
>> finished. Starting something new will be more educational than
>> increased polishing on the old project. Never did figure out how to
>> render something out of Vegas that would upload to YouTube -- which is
>> completely bizarre. It uploaded to Vimeo fine, so I'm just hosting it
>> there. Maybe eventually I'll figure out the secret to YouTube. I
>> uploaded three trivial videos years before, edited I think in Windows
>> Movie Maker, with no problem, it seemed trivial.
>
> I found that the best format to use when uploading videos to YouTube is
> wmv.

I think I tried that; either that or there isn't a render that comes out
in WMV format in my list.

> I had problems uploading high resolution videos 1920 x 1080 as they were
> slow to upload and after a while they stopped uploading. So I now upload
> videos that are compiled as 720 x 1280 in wmv format.

I haven't tried anything higher than 720 x 1280.

> Try uploading the video by compiling it as a file first then log onto the
> YouTube site with your web browser and click on upload file on the YouTube

That's mostly what I've done, since it lets me test the file locally first.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

[mike]

On Jan 19, 11:44 am, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> snip <

>
> Are you sure Pro 11 doesn't run on XP (I'd try downloading a trial
> version of Pro 11 and seeing if you can load and run the 32-bit
> version with XP)?

It doesn't. Sony changed the rules with the release of Pro 11 and you
need either (shudder!!) Vista or Windows 7 to run it.

Mike

[mike]

On Jan 19, 1:44 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> writes:

> > David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >> Thanks.  I need to start another project, the first one is pretty much
> >> finished.  Starting something new will be more educational than
> >> increased polishing on the old project.  Never did figure out how to
> >> render something out of Vegas that would upload to YouTube -- which is
> >> completely bizarre.  It uploaded to Vimeo fine, so I'm just hosting it
> >> there.  Maybe eventually I'll figure out the secret to YouTube.  I
> >> uploaded three trivial videos years before, edited I think in Windows
> >> Movie Maker, with no problem, it seemed trivial.
>
> > I found that the best format to use when uploading videos to YouTube is
> > wmv.
>
> I think I tried that; either that or there isn't a render that comes out
> in WMV format in my list.
>
> > I had problems uploading high resolution videos 1920 x 1080 as they were
> > slow to upload and after a while they stopped uploading. So I now upload
> > videos that are compiled as 720 x 1280 in wmv format.
>
> I haven't tried anything higher than 720 x 1280.
>
> > Try uploading the video by compiling it as a file first then log onto the
> > YouTube site with your web browser and click on upload file on the YouTube
>
> That's mostly what I've done, since it lets me test the file locally first.
> --

> David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net;http://dd-b.net/

> Snapshots:http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
> Photos:http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
> Dragaera:http://dragaera.info

Vegas Pro has several presets labeled "Internet..." in the Sony AVC
mp4 templates.
Take a look and see if you have something similar.
I use the "Internet 1280x720-30P" preset for anything I give to my
Marketing department for uploads to YouTube.

Mike

[David Ruether]

"mike" <mkuj...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
b2f56299-f1f6-4035...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

Then I'd try an upgrade route I described earlier (there are
several that can reduce the price of Pro 11), or get Win-7.
BTW, Pro 8 runs very well on XP 32-bit (with the free updates
installed) - and at $250 new, the price isn't bad from Amazon.
The Pro-11 upgrade is also $250 (plus the price of Win-7), a
reasonable price. One comment, though: both Pro 8 and 9 (I
didn't get 10) are more stable than Pro 11 appears to be as
yet. Unless you're working with AVCHD 60P, you may not need
the previewing and processing acceleration Pro 11 provides
(but only with fancy hardware).
--DR

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Yes, that's the obvious one, and the one I tried first. Fails to work,
across big samples, small samples, upload through browser, upload
through Vegas. Upload works, but eventually I get a message that
YouTabe failed to process the video, and it never becomes available.

I'm using Movie Studio HD Platinum V11, rather than Pro (something like
a 6:1 cost saving, necessary for me since video is a fringe hobby for
me); but I'd think that the rendering templates would produce similar
results.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

[Brian]

To render a suitable file that can be uploaded to YouTube with no problems
using Sony Vegas.

Select Windows Media Video V11 (* wmv). From the render format options
Click on the Custom button
Click on the video tab at the bottom
Change the mode to Bit Rate VBR
Change the bit rate to 2M. (helps to keep the rendered file a smaller size)
Select the image size of High Definition 1280 x 720

You should not have any problems in uploading the rendered file to YouTube
and it should have an wmv file extension

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

It's the same old story where software is forcing people to upgrade their
equipment or operating system.
I am thinking of installing the 64 bit Windows 7 so I have a choice of
either booting into a 32 bit or a 64 bit operating system. This will then
allow me to use software that needs a 64 bit operating system.
The downside is I will need to buy another copy of Window 7 as the licence
is for either a 32 bit or a 64 bit operating system and not both.
--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> writes:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>>> Thanks. I need to start another project, the first one is pretty much
>>> finished. Starting something new will be more educational than
>>> increased polishing on the old project. Never did figure out how to
>>> render something out of Vegas that would upload to YouTube -- which is
>>> completely bizarre. It uploaded to Vimeo fine, so I'm just hosting it
>>> there. Maybe eventually I'll figure out the secret to YouTube. I
>>> uploaded three trivial videos years before, edited I think in Windows
>>> Movie Maker, with no problem, it seemed trivial.
>>
>> I found that the best format to use when uploading videos to YouTube is
>> wmv.
>
> I think I tried that; either that or there isn't a render that comes out
> in WMV format in my list.
>
>> I had problems uploading high resolution videos 1920 x 1080 as they were
>> slow to upload and after a while they stopped uploading. So I now upload
>> videos that are compiled as 720 x 1280 in wmv format.
>
> I haven't tried anything higher than 720 x 1280.
>
>> Try uploading the video by compiling it as a file first then log onto the
>> YouTube site with your web browser and click on upload file on the YouTube
>
> That's mostly what I've done, since it lets me test the file locally first.

Sony Vegas Pro has an option for compiling in wmv format. You will need to
make a few changes to set it up to a video data rate of 2 Mbps and a
resolution of 720 x 1280. Using this format worked every time when
uploading to YouTube.
You might want to save the settings when you have made adjustments in Sony
Vegas.

--
Regards Brian

[Mxsmanic]

David Dyer-Bennet writes:

> Are you in a PAL area? I wouldn't normally think of trying the 50FPS
> encodings from North America. (Not that I know YouTube cares about
> where you are! I'll give this a try.)

Yes, I'm in PAL-land. I only use 50i because that's what the camera produces.
I don't think the 50/60 fps difference has any influence on the success or
failure of uploads to YouTube. In any case, YouTube seems to favor 30/60 fps
over 25/50 fps, and used to force 50i to 30p with some stuttering in the
video, but now both 50 and 60 fps seem to work okay. Keep in mind that YouTube
always forces everything to progressive scan, so interlaced video gets
converted. And it also places an upper limit of 30 fps on the resulting
progressive video. This shouldn't be a problem in North America, though, and I
doubt if it's your problem.

[Mxsmanic]

David Ruether writes:

> Are you sure Pro 11 doesn't run on XP (I'd try downloading a trial
> version of Pro 11 and seeing if you can load and run the 32-bit
> version with XP)?

Certain. With version 11 of Vegas Pro, Sony dropped support for Windows XP.
Apparently it won't even install.

> If this doesn't work, Windows 7 may be the way to go ...

Changing operating systems is pretty extreme just to install one application,
but it's up to you. I cannot justify that, as I have more than 100
applications running on the machine.

> BTW, I just looked these up, and Amazon has new copies of Pro 10
> for $529 at --

Unfortunately, I still haven't saved up enough for Vegas Pro, and I suspect
that by the time I have enough money (if I ever do), it will be impossible to
get version 10 anywhere.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I'll have a look; but I'm in Vegas Movie Studio HD Platinum, not Pro,
and I don't recall any template that produces WMV format.

> You might want to save the settings when you have made adjustments in Sony
> Vegas.

Oh yeah.

[Gavino]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:p5bhh7hcl31ssv2oo...@4ax.com...

> Keep in mind that YouTube
> always forces everything to progressive scan, so interlaced video gets
> converted.

Does it actually get converted (ie deinterlaced), or simply treated as
progressive, resulting in combing artefacts visible on playback?

I always understood it was best to do the deinterlacing yourself, and upload
only progressive material to YT.

[Mxsmanic]

Gavino writes:

> Does it actually get converted (ie deinterlaced), or simply treated as
> progressive, resulting in combing artefacts visible on playback?

YouTube won't say, and it's hard to tell. Indeed, it seems to change from time
to time, as YouTube seems to modify their player almost daily.

> I always understood it was best to do the deinterlacing yourself, and upload
> only progressive material to YT.

That's what YT says, but I don't know how good the deinterlacing is in Vegas
(there's no real choice of algorithms, for example), and any other
deinterlacing requires creating another generation of the video, which the
corresponding loss of quality.

The real solution is to shoot progressive, but since Sony deliberately omits
progressive scan from its less expensive cameras, that can be difficult.

[J. Clarke]

In article <110619956348707691.8...@free.teranews.com>,
bcl...@es.co.nz says...

Why go to all the trouble? Do you have some application that you
absolutely need to have that is known to not run under 64-bit? The ones
that won't are generally quite ancient.

And there is a free download of "XP mode" that runs 32 bit XP in a
virtual machine under Windows 7 64 bit that handles most but not all of
the applications that just plain won't run under 64-bit.

Or if you have a 32 bit operating system that you like, just keep using
it and add Windows 7 on a new disk.

[Mxsmanic]

J. Clarke writes:

> Or if you have a 32 bit operating system that you like, just keep using
> it and add Windows 7 on a new disk.

Or, simpler still, just stay with XP.

[Paul]

The only problem with this, for video editing purposes, is whether
a virtual machine environment supports a single core or multiple cores.
VirtualPC 2007 supports only a single core. WinXP Mode would run in the
successor to VPC2007, Windows Virtual PC, and it's likely limited to execution
on a single core as well. (I can't test any of this unfortunately, as
my Win7 laptop only has a single core processor.)

That would be most visible as an issue, during rendering, when you would
normally expect all the cores on the processor to participate.

VirtualBox supports more cores than the Microsoft product. Or if you were
to go with something like Microsoft Hyper-V, that too might support
multiple cores.

So before going to the trouble of installing that way, verify the core
count support.

VMWare Player also supports WinXP mode. But VMWare Player also attempts
to stay within the licensing requirements stated by Microsoft, that
the WinXP Mode image only work on the more expensive versions of
Windows 7.

If, on the other hand, you use an old copyof WinXP, say a retail
installer CD (and key you are no longer using), then more virtual
machine environments can work with that (since there are no
licensing restrictions to enforce).

It's by no means a "slam dunk" and requires work and research by
the user.

For trivial software reuse, where performance is not an issue,
then you wouldn't have to worry about this. If your software
ran on a single core, you might not notice. But if you want to
bring the whole processor to bear (quad or hex core say), then
more research is necessary.

(A report from a user...)

http://superuser.com/questions/246003/windows-virtual-pc-multi-core-possible

The table at the bottom of this page, kinda hints at this, by not mentioning
products which are restricted. Only the products with capabilities were
put in the bottom table (which in my mind is stupid - they should all
have been listed for completeness).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_platform_virtual_machines

On one product page, Microsoft mentions that Windows Virtual PC will run
individual guest OSes in their own threads (so say, a copy of Windows XP
and a copy of Windows 98, each have their own thread). But that doesn't
tell me whether the threads could have their own processor core to use.
And it still sounds like a single core limit, overall (a guest OS doesn't
get to use more than one core).

Paul

[J. Clarke]

In article <jffqc7$oj9$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, nos...@needed.com says...

OK, Paul, tell us what video editor you want to use that supports
multiple procesors but won't install on Windows 7 64-bit.

[Brian]

But then I would not be able to use my Windows 7 programs. Not everything
working under Windows XP.
--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

in my case I currently are using Windows 7 32 bit version. What you had
said is what I was planning on doing.
Thanks for the info about XP.
--
Regards Brian

[Paul]

J. Clarke wrote:

>
> OK, Paul, tell us what video editor you want to use that supports
> multiple procesors but won't install on Windows 7 64-bit.

I'm pointing out, that while WinXP Mode can solve the problem
of reusing old software on Windows 7, it isn't a "performance" solution.
But there are alternative ways to gain access to all the processor cores in
a virtual environment.

For a lot of people, they're only using something like WinXP Mode
because they needed access to an old document scanner or the like.

Windows 7 x64 will run 64 bit and 32 bit programs, and has various
Compatibility settings you can try. What it won't do, is run 16 bit
code. And in some cases, the 16 bit code is in the program installer,
rather than the actual code that runs when you use the program. The
rest of the program might be 32 bit. Just the installer gets stuck
and won't run.

If you install Windows 7 x32, that wouldn't have a problem, but then,
you might not have that option. On my laptop, it comes with x64
pre-installed, and offers no option to run the x32 version. If I
wanted x32 OS now, I'd have to buy another copy.

There can be other reasons for programs not being compatible with
the new OS. In which case, you might not discover the problems until
you try your old program.

If I plug "vegas" into the search box here, the results tell me there is
a problem with Vegas 9. Which might not be a 16 bit problem, but some
other problem with what the program does within the OS. But this table
doesn't go into details, and the manufacturer might list a version
as incompatible, simply to profit from program upgrades.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/windows-7/en-us/default.aspx

Paul

[Brian]

i'm also told that there can be a problem in getting suitable drivers for
equipment when installing a 64 bit operating system.
--
Regards Brian

[ushere]

> i'm also told that there can be a problem in getting suitable drivers for
> equipment when installing a 64 bit operating system.

true, but it's usually pretty obscure or out of date equipment.

there's nothing wrong with sticking with xp, it's a great os, but then
again, it's no longer supported, nothing new is being written for it,
rather like the saab.

they're are people still running win 2000.

however, this is now, not then and if you want the best from MODERN
programs, MODERN hardware then you'd be a fool or luddite to think an
old os is going to provide it.

[Mxsmanic]

ushere writes:

> there's nothing wrong with sticking with xp, it's a great os, but then
> again, it's no longer supported, nothing new is being written for it,
> rather like the saab.

It's better to have unsupported software that works than supported software
that doesn't.

And there are still people writing for XP. It's not hard to write for both XP
and Windows 7, either.

> they're are people still running win 2000.

There are still people running Windows 95 and 16-bit versions of Windows. The
larger the installed base of a product, the longer it takes for everyone to
stop using it. Software never wears out, so in theory it can be used as long
as there is hardware that will run it. I'm certain that people are still
running MS-DOS in some places.

> however, this is now, not then and if you want the best from MODERN
> programs, MODERN hardware then you'd be a fool or luddite to think an
> old os is going to provide it.

The modern programs and hardware often don't provide anything that you need.

One of the greatest myths in computerland is the one that says that you must
constantly, incessantly "upgrade" everything every few months. Can you imagine
what the world would be like if this applied in every domain? It's a marketing
myth.

[ReverendFuzzy]

Considering all the upgrading I'd have to do to be "up to date", the
cost would
be prohibitive. I think I'll just stick with Premiere Pro 7 on XP...
at least Pro 7
detects and uses both the cores of my dual-core P4. Besides, as the
system
is, it does all that I need it to do. If I ever have to upgrade from
XP media center,
It'll likely be nothing more than XP ultimate.

..come to think of it, the only reason that I switched from a computer
running on
the OS-9 operating system (a UNIXy thing) to something that ran
Windows, was
that I wasn't able to afford a LINEAR editing system with a proper
edit controller,
character generator, switcher, and timebase corrector. So perhaps
upgrades
CAN be a good thing, in a way.... but there are limits.
--
Reverend Fuzzy

[ushere]

> The modern programs and hardware often don't provide anything that you need.
>
> One of the greatest myths in computerland is the one that says that you must
> constantly, incessantly "upgrade" everything every few months. Can you imagine
> what the world would be like if this applied in every domain? It's a marketing
> myth.

i'm not arguing with you, however, if your livelihood revolves around
the use of a computer (as mine does with video production), then the
advantages of using new hardware and software are very compelling
reasons to upgrade - especially if your clients are paying for it (which
of course, mine are).

[Brian]

If you were keen on computer games then you would be continuously upgrading
your computer to allow you to run the latest games. I'm not a keen games
player so its not a problem for me. I get a feeling that the hardware and
software companies are in touch with each other and the software company is
running i will wrote a program that will force people to want to upgrade
their computer system so you csn sell them the hardware.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

upgrading is not always a good thing.
I have a number of out dated computers laying around the house.
Some updated hardware lacks in some features that older hardware once had
the same applies to software. In Microsoft word you use to be able to edit
html files but in more recent versions of Microsoft word you could no
longer do this.

I know of some people that are still using there old programs that do
everything they want so they have no need to upgrade.

We are all tended to upgrade when there is some feature in a program that
is of interest to us such as a stabilizer in an editing program or the
program compiles faster.

I would like to use the popular Adobe after effects but it requires a 64
bit operating system and if I were able to get an older version of this
program then it would not work on Windows 7 32 bit operating system.


--
Regards Brian

[Mxsmanic]

ReverendFuzzy writes:

> Considering all the upgrading I'd have to do to be "up to date", the
> cost would be prohibitive. I think I'll just stick with Premiere Pro 7
> on XP...

I'm in a similar situation. I'd love to move up to Sony Vegas Pro, but the
latest version no longer supports Windows XP, and it would cost literally
thousands of dollars to "upgrade" to Windows 7. No single application is worth
that much time and money. Maybe if I can find a spare copy of Vegas Pro 10 one
of these days when I've saved up enough ... but even then, where would I find
the updates, since Sony seems to have removed them from its site?

> ..come to think of it, the only reason that I switched from a computer
> running on the OS-9 operating system (a UNIXy thing) to something that
> ran Windows, was that I wasn't able to afford a LINEAR editing system
> with a proper edit controller, character generator, switcher, and timebase
> corrector. So perhaps upgrades CAN be a good thing, in a way.... but there
> are limits.

For better or for worse, Windows has the largest selection of applications
available, and they tend to be less expensive than their counterparts on other
platforms (where versions for other platforms exist--usually it's Windows
only).

FCP may be the cat's meow for video editing (opinions differ), but no matter
how good it is, it cannot justify moving from a Windows environment to a Mac.
There isn't any application that can justify that. I'd settle for Vegas Pro,
but now even that is out of reach.

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> If you were keen on computer games then you would be continuously upgrading
> your computer to allow you to run the latest games. I'm not a keen games
> player so its not a problem for me. I get a feeling that the hardware and
> software companies are in touch with each other and the software company is
> running i will wrote a program that will force people to want to upgrade
> their computer system so you csn sell them the hardware.

At least in the case of Microsoft, computers are constantly upgraded to the
latest and greatest internally, such that software development always takes
place on the fastest computers currently available. This encourages Microsoft
to write extremely bloated software that runs at a snail's pace on the
computers actually used by customers who do not see computers as an end in
themselves. This reality has bitten Microsoft on many occasions, when they
discover that the product that runs so nicely internally runs too slow to even
be usable in the average customer environment.

Other software companies have the same problem. It's a bit like setting up a
schedule that assumes that everyone involved will be in Formula 1 cars driving
at 200 mph, only to discover that in real life, people drive rusting Fords in
stop-and-go traffic.

[Mxsmanic]

ushere writes:

> i'm not arguing with you, however, if your livelihood revolves around
> the use of a computer (as mine does with video production), then the
> advantages of using new hardware and software are very compelling
> reasons to upgrade - especially if your clients are paying for it (which
> of course, mine are).

It depends. Every time you "upgrade," you delay projects and destabilize your
computer, which can cost you a great deal of time and money. And "upgrading"
anything often has a snowball effect that requires you to upgrade software and
hardware that you had not thought about, costing more time and money. And you
may also discover six months down the line that your last upgrade broke an
application that is essential to your business but rarely used, and now you
have to get an expensive upgrade to the application or (worse yet) the
application isn't supported on your upgraded system.

When I worked for a company that was very gung-ho on regularly upgrading to
the latest and greated, I was always very prompt to install the latest version
of everything ... because it gave me 3-4 days of free time while I tried to
get everything to work again. So you'd start the upgrade of application number
44 and wait an hour, then application 45 and another hour, and so on.

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> upgrading is not always a good thing.
> I have a number of out dated computers laying around the house.
> Some updated hardware lacks in some features that older hardware once had
> the same applies to software. In Microsoft word you use to be able to edit
> html files but in more recent versions of Microsoft word you could no
> longer do this.

I have a program that requires a dongle on the parallel printer port, and a
serial mouse. The last computer I built had no serial port for the mouse,
requiring that I buy a USB mouse. And it had no printer port, either,
requiring that I buy a printer card just to be able to print and use my dongle
for my program. Lots of wasted time and money. And it' wasn't even really an
upgrade, it was just a replacement for a computer that failed.

> We are all tended to upgrade when there is some feature in a program that
> is of interest to us such as a stabilizer in an editing program or the
> program compiles faster.

On that path lies danger.

The more essential your computer is to your lifestyle or your business, the
more conservative you should be in upgrading it.

[ReverendFuzzy]

FCP? Couldn't be TOO much of the cat's meow...I've been editing video
since 1987,
and never heard of FCP before.

[David Ruether]

"ReverendFuzzy" <goo...@msbministries.org> wrote in message news:
9cb1d7aa-abce-46c9...@iu7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

Um, "Final Cut Pro", for Mac computers (recently "downgraded" to
a more amateur-friendly simplified editor by Apple, to the annoyance
of the pro users, I've heard...). BTW, I've been having problems
with rendering files in Vegas Pro to new files while maintaining
the original very high quality (see for more the thread below on
"Maintaining...."), so I tried CyberLink's Power Director 10. Fairly
nice program, but it did a worse job with the files (the resulting
files were WEIRD!), and as with many other programs, a VERY important
and useful filter that exists in Vegas ("Color Curves" - which permits
the tonal response curve of the image to be altered graphically to
taste to open up shadows, tone-down too-bright areas, etc.) is not
available.
--DR

[Steve King]

"ReverendFuzzy" <goo...@msbministries.org> wrote in message

news:9cb1d7aa-abce-46c9...@iu7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Final Cut Pro has been around since the early 2000s. It runs on Mac
operating systems. In 2007 FCP made up 49% of the US professional editing
market, with AVID at 22%. It is very hard to miss if one is engaged in
video editing or engages video editors for a living. Related to upgrades,
the current version of FCP is giving users of earlier versions fits, because
it requires operators to change a lot of work-flow habits and editing
techniques that have become second nature over many years of use. However,
once acclimated to the new way of doing things, many editors are becoming
fans of the newest version.

Steve King

[David Ruether]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:

qc2th794nk8luorlf...@4ax.com:

> ushere writes:

> > i'm not arguing with you, however, if your livelihood revolves around
> > the use of a computer (as mine does with video production), then the
> > advantages of using new hardware and software are very compelling
> > reasons to upgrade - especially if your clients are paying for it (which
> > of course, mine are).

> It depends. Every time you "upgrade," you delay projects and destabilize your
> computer, which can cost you a great deal of time and money. And "upgrading"
> anything often has a snowball effect that requires you to upgrade software and
> hardware that you had not thought about, costing more time and money. And you
> may also discover six months down the line that your last upgrade broke an
> application that is essential to your business but rarely used, and now you
> have to get an expensive upgrade to the application or (worse yet) the
> application isn't supported on your upgraded system.

Oh, been there, done that!!!!!!!!!!! UGH!!! 8^( Over time I've lost
two
favorite photo editors, all my MIDI capability (however modest...;-),
and
my ability to scan film. And then there is the infamous annoying
tendency
for each new Vegas upgrade to need 4-5 free fix upgrades to finally work
right. Or, I should have stuck with HDV, Vegas 8 (when it was FINALLY
fixed
and working right), and my old quad-core computer with XP on it. It all
worked well - but no, I saw what that %$#& Panasonic TM700 could do, and
off I went down the trail of misery trying to edit its amazing output...

> When I worked for a company that was very gung-ho on regularly upgrading to
> the latest and greated, I was always very prompt to install the latest version
> of everything ... because it gave me 3-4 days of free time while I tried to
> get everything to work again. So you'd start the upgrade of application number
> 44 and wait an hour, then application 45 and another hour, and so on.

8^)
--DR

[David Ruether]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:

et1th7t1r2ikg8jd1...@4ax.com:

Look for Vegas Pro 8 or 9 on www.Amazon.com - and the free updates
on the sonycreativesoftware that range back to version 2... My
experience lately with Pro 11 has not been at all good - so I'm
likely now to return to Pro 8 or Pro 9 because of the limitations
with exporting good files from Pro 11 with 60P source material
(see the thread above on "Maintaining [Quality In] 60P Video
Copies").
--DR

[ushere]

> FCP? Couldn't be TOO much of the cat's meow...I've been editing video
> since 1987,
> and never heard of FCP before.

wow!

[Mxsmanic]

David Ruether writes:

> Look for Vegas Pro 8 or 9 on www.Amazon.com - and the free updates
> on the sonycreativesoftware that range back to version 2...

Why not Vegas Pro 10?

[ushere]

stability?

[David Ruether]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:

oqduh7trbeu4b5ac7...@4ax.com:

As "ushere" wrote, "stability?" Also, I've had a terrible
time with exporting good files of any type using 28Mbps
Panasonic TM700 camera output (see "Maintaining 60P..."
below), and I suspect it has to do with the rendering
acceleration feature. As for Pro 10 and 11, go to --
www.sonycreativesoftware.com and under "Support", "Forums",
go to "Vegas" - and you will see what people think and
write (and how nervy Sony is to publish the user comments
without editing them...;-). I recommended Vegas 8 or 9
'cuz these two (WITH the free latest updates) are stable,
unlike the later two, and they produce higher quality
output than at least Pro 11 (at least yet...).
--DR

[ushere]

dr, have you tried rendering with gpu accel. turned off?

[Mxsmanic]

But weren't there updates to 10 to fix things?

[David Ruether]

"ushere" <removethis.lesl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:
BZMTq.2122$v14...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com:

Yes, among everything else I could think of. I posted this
last night to the Sony Vegas forum --

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EXPORTING PAN. TM700 28Mbps 1920x1080-60P WITH VEGAS 11

I have two Panasonic TM700 camcorders which are capable
of recording very high quality progressive 59.940 frames
per second. The lens is very sharp - and the results
viewed directly from the camcorder on a good HDTV can
be spectacularly good. But, then there are two hurdles
beyond that point. Even my now-old Vegas Pro 8 (and my
friend's cheap Vegas Movie Studio Platinum 10) could
import the files (unlike Premiere Pro and Final Cut Pro
for a while...), but working with the 28Mbps 1920x1080
"60"P AVCHD material (even though this format is now
recognized as part of the AVCHD standard) proved to be
quite difficult, unlike HDV. Before moving to the new
format, I did some tests and came to the conclusion
that the 17Mbps 60I footage was too inferior to bother
with, but that the (surprisingly) similar format that
the camera could make from original material shot as
28Mbps 60P and then converted to 17Mbps 60I material
was surprisingly very good - but it didn't hold up as
well to as much post work as original 60P material did,
so my preferred choice was to work with 60P.

Since previewing this material could be PAINFUL with
my old software (Vegas 8) and hardware (Intel quad-core,
without hardware acceleration), I "bit the bullet" and
went to Vegas Pro 11 and I built a new fast computer
(4.4gHz i7, 16gigs RAM, 480-core video card), and this
appeared to perform well enough. Unfortunately, after
I had exported 50Mbps MP4s of clips for working with
later, I discovered that all of the clips had unacceptable
flaws (softness and repeated edges with camera motion).
Comparing these clips with the originals on the timeline
was VERY upsetting. I tried exporting a 20-second sample
clip using MANY different options and variations for
format types, and only an AVI file of 5gigs[!] came close
to the original's quality. To eliminate hardware problems
as a possible cause, I tried slowing the CPU to 3.4gHz,
slowing the RAM to 1333 (although it showed no errors at
1600 running overnight with memtest86), and rendering
export files with just the CPU and with just the GPU,
without improvement. I checked an MP4 video from last year
that I had exported from the same type of footage with
Vegas Pro 8 or 9 (as 50Mbps 60P files) against the
original source clips, and the results were excellent
(with no visible problems at all). I tried CyberLink
PowerDirector, with the same poor results as with Vegas
Pro 11. I also tried Vegas Media Studio HD Platinum 10,
and the results were fine! This indicates to me that the
problem is in the software and the rendering acceleration.
Any other ideas? If not, I will be giving up on Pro 11
(I never could get the stabilizer to work anyway, which
was one of the reason for updating to Pro 11) and going
back to an earlier version of Vegas Pro. I hope I can
save much of the work done on this current project...

--DR

[David Ruether]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:

lhnvh7p48bkufb6j5...@4ax.com:

Yes, but see the Sony Vegas forum at Sonycreativesoftware
to see how far they got with it... Also, see my response
to "ushere" (and my original post on the Vegas forum about
the problems with exporting good files from Pro 11 - and
likely Pro 10, since it also offers acceleration[?]).
Stick with what is known to work well and which is excellent.
--DR

[David Ruether]

"David Ruether" <d_ru...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
jfp1og$8p6$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu:

More:
I posted a description describing the problems I've been having
with exporting good files from the Sony Vegas Pro 11, preferably
using MainConcept AVC at 59.940fps and 50Mbps data rate. Nothing I
tried helped - but John Meyer on the Vegas Forum caught something
I said, and, Tah-DAH!, following his advice, rendering now works
properly! YEAH! The advice was to leave unchecked in the "Render
As", then "Custom", dialogue box both the "Allow source to adjust
frame rate" and the "Allow source to adjust frame size" boxes.
My THANKS to John Meyer and to the others who tried to help in
the Forum!
--DR

[ushere]

i read it there - just thought i'd answer here with the driver point in
case anyone else was having problems.

i feel your pain. this release has been very problematic for a lot of
people.

[ushere]

GREAT!!!!

[Brian]

I use Vegas Pro 10 for editing files that are avchd at a data video rate of
17 Mbps and don't have many problems.
My video camera will go up to 28 Mbps 50p (pal) and I have tried the
various recording qualities but can see very little difference between 28M
50p and 17M 50i when playing back the video directly from the camera using
HDMI cable on a 40 inch LCD TV. So most of my recordings will be done in
AVCHD 17M 50i
--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

Power Director has been number one in the top 10 video editors on some
sites for a while. I think the reason why its popular is that its easy to
use and also entertaining with its many bells and whistles such as the fun
transitions. But it does lack in features that a pro is more likely to use.
--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

The company I worked for always used an older operating system so if
windows 98
was released then they would upgrade to Windows 95 as they felt that most
of the bugs in the system would have been sorted out in an older operating
system.
The company only installed a few programs on each computer so there was
never a problem with a new program blocking another program from working.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

The other problem is that the smaller software writer does not if his
program will run with other operating systems when he wants to sell it.
Also he has to up date his compiler so that the program will work under
recent operating systems.
--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

Its the same for other software updates. A friend of mine is using version
8 of Adobe Premiere Elements as the latest version of this program has
problems with AVCHD video.
I don't understand why software is released without fully testing it. Some
companies have Beta testers to iron out the faults in the software.
--
Regards Brian

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> The other problem is that the smaller software writer does not if his
> program will run with other operating systems when he wants to sell it.
> Also he has to up date his compiler so that the program will work under
> recent operating systems.

If he is conservative, he can write something that will run in a larger
variety of environments. For example, using MFC or .NET is a sleighride to
disaster. Sticking to the standard Windows API is much safer, since it changes
much less.

Writing for multiple operating systems is much more complex and substantially
limits flexibility, but if a program is written for Windows, that's already
95% of the market, enough for most self-employed programmers.

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> Power Director has been number one in the top 10 video editors on some
> sites for a while. I think the reason why its popular is that its easy to
> use and also entertaining with its many bells and whistles such as the fun
> transitions. But it does lack in features that a pro is more likely to use.

How often do pros use fun transitions?

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> I don't understand why software is released without fully testing it.

Because consumers are conditioned to tolerate it. They would never put up with
it when buying a car or washing machine, but they've been brainwashed to
expect bugs and problems with computer software.

And software companies release untested software because they want the money.
They know that it's unlikely anyone will sue them for selling defective
products, so they rush to get things to market so that they can make more
money. And they pile on more and more bloated, untested features because they
have to have some way of persuading people to "upgrade" (unless they are
compulsive upgraders, as some customers tend to be).

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> The company I worked for always used an older operating system so if
> windows 98 was released then they would upgrade to Windows 95 as they felt that most
> of the bugs in the system would have been sorted out in an older operating
> system.

They are completely right.

> The company only installed a few programs on each computer so there was
> never a problem with a new program blocking another program from working.

Also a sound policy.

[David Ruether]

"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:
1499184791349226844....@free.teranews.com:

> "David Ruether" <d_ru...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
> > oqduh7trbeu4b5ac7...@4ax.com:
> >> David Ruether writes:

> >>> Look for Vegas Pro 8 or 9 on www.Amazon.com - and the free updates
> >>> on the sonycreativesoftware that range back to version 2...

> >> Why not Vegas Pro 10?

> > As "ushere" wrote, "stability?" Also, I've had a terrible
> > time with exporting good files of any type using 28Mbps
> > Panasonic TM700 camera output (see "Maintaining 60P..."
> > below), and I suspect it has to do with the rendering
> > acceleration feature. As for Pro 10 and 11, go to --
> > www.sonycreativesoftware.com and under "Support", "Forums",
> > go to "Vegas" - and you will see what people think and
> > write (and how nervy Sony is to publish the user comments
> > without editing them...;-). I recommended Vegas 8 or 9
> > 'cuz these two (WITH the free latest updates) are stable,
> > unlike the later two, and they produce higher quality
> > output than at least Pro 11 (at least yet...).
> > --DR

The problems I'd been having with rendering/exporting clean
50Mbps 1080P MP4s from 28Mbps 1080P camera MTS files with
Vegas Pro 11 have been solved by a suggestion by John Meyer
on the Vegas Forum that I leave unchecked "Allow video to
determine frame rate" (or some such...). What a relief!

> I use Vegas Pro 10 for editing files that are avchd at a data video rate of
> 17 Mbps and don't have many problems.
> My video camera will go up to 28 Mbps 50p (pal) and I have tried the
> various recording qualities but can see very little difference between 28M
> 50p and 17M 50i when playing back the video directly from the camera using
> HDMI cable on a 40 inch LCD TV.

Even in the web samples (I think you posted), the differences
were easy to see. Try putting the two formats one over the
other on the timeline and switch between the tracks (with
similar, detailed subject material) using a good 1920x1080
monitor. It should be easy to see the difference going
frame-by-frame. With the Panasonic TM700 it is, although if
the original is shot as 28 Mbps 60P and then converted in
the camera (in slower than real time...) to 17Mbps 60I, the
difference is much more subtle - but that 17Mbps material
still doesn't hold up as well to post work as the 60P material
does.

> So most of my recordings will be done in
> AVCHD 17M 50i
> --
> Regards Brian

That's up to you...!;-)
--DR

[mike]

On Jan 20, 9:31 pm, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gavino writes:
> > Does it actually get converted (ie deinterlaced), or simply treated as
> > progressive, resulting in combing artefacts visible on playback?
>
> YouTube won't say, and it's hard to tell. Indeed, it seems to change from time
> to time, as YouTube seems to modify their player almost daily.
>
> > I always understood it was best to do the deinterlacing yourself, and upload
> > only progressive material to YT.
>
> That's what YT says, but I don't know how good the deinterlacing is in Vegas
> (there's no real choice of algorithms, for example), and any other
> deinterlacing requires creating another generation of the video, which the
> corresponding loss of quality.
>
> The real solution is to shoot progressive, but since Sony deliberately omits
> progressive scan from its less expensive cameras, that can be difficult.


Here are two different approaches based on the recommendations of
several users on the Sony Vegas forum.
Yadif Deinterlace, found at http://www.yohng.com/software/yadifvegas.html
Vegas to Vimeo, YouTube and the Web, found at http://vimeo.com/24640614

Mike

[Mxsmanic]

mike writes:

> Here are two different approaches based on the recommendations of
> several users on the Sony Vegas forum.
> Yadif Deinterlace, found at http://www.yohng.com/software/yadifvegas.html
> Vegas to Vimeo, YouTube and the Web, found at http://vimeo.com/24640614

I think that type of plug-in is only supported for Vegas Pro, not Vegas Movie
Studio. Still, I'll make a note of it, just in case.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

mike <mkuj...@gmail.com> writes:

> Here are two different approaches based on the recommendations of
> several users on the Sony Vegas forum.
> Yadif Deinterlace, found at http://www.yohng.com/software/yadifvegas.html
> Vegas to Vimeo, YouTube and the Web, found at http://vimeo.com/24640614

Oooh, I need to view the second one, since I can go to Vimeo but can't
yet get to YouTube from Vegas.

Thanks for quoting the full title; my problems don't seem to be
interlace-related, so I wouldn't have gone and looked at the blind URL
if you hadn't given the full title which mentions YouTube.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> writes:

> I don't understand why software is released without fully testing it.

I can address that; I've been writing software professionaly for over 40
years now.

Basically the answer is: it's impossible to "fully test" it.

Fully testing has to mean *at the very least* exercising every code
path, including error cases, in the software. And, these days, you have
to do that on every supported OS (which doesn't mean "Windows"; it means
each sub-version of Windows 7 separately, etc.), on every combination of
hardware, including Intel vs. AMD processors, various graphics cards,
various chipsets driving the buses, sound interfaces, various amounts of
memory (and types, and speeds), etc. With all the driver versions that
will be found in the field (especially relevant for video, sound, and
disk drivers).

That is, really truly billions of cases, many of which need specific
hardware.

When I worked for DEC in the early 1980s, a new release of the TOPS-20
OS would be developed for a few years, and then released to field-test
where selected customers would run it in near-production use for around
six months. And field test found errors fairly frequently -- even
though they had done extensive testing internally, and even though the
hardware was all made and sold by DEC (a much, much narrower environment
than what software has to run in today). The problems of something like
Vegas, today, are many orders of magnitude harder than that.

Testing, and beta-test users, are still important (I have no idea what
Sony does for Vegas internally, but they're important for the industry
in general). But any concept of "full" testing has been abandoned as
impossible decades ago.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> writes:

> The company I worked for always used an older operating system so if
> windows 98
> was released then they would upgrade to Windows 95 as they felt that most
> of the bugs in the system would have been sorted out in an older operating
> system.

They're behind the times. Most of the bugs reported against Windows 95
weren't fixed in updates to Windows 95; they were only fixed in Windows
98.

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 1/26/2012, David Dyer-Bennet posted:

+1 for your whole reply.

Or +1000, if I could.

Thanks for the very cogent write-up.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[ReverendFuzzy]

On Jan 18, 10:40 am, ReverendFuzzy <goo...@msbministries.org> wrote:
> so... what's everyone in this group using to edit thier videos?

I think I may have opened the proverbial can of worms with this
thread.

[Mxsmanic]

David Dyer-Bennet writes:

> Basically the answer is: it's impossible to "fully test" it.

Not true. Software can usually be fully tested if enough time and effort is
put into it. This is routinely done for safety-of-life software.

It's not impossible to fully test it, it just isn't as profitable as throwing
it onto the market with virtually no testing. Since many consumers of software
have been conditioned to believe that it's not supposed to work correctly,
anyway, they readily accept software that is filled with defects and bugs, and
this works to the advantage of greedy software companies that can't be
bothered to put the necessary time and effort into testing what they sell.

When software companies are called on this, they always trot out the same
statement that you've just made. The only problem is that the statement is
false.

> Fully testing has to mean *at the very least* exercising every code
> path, including error cases, in the software. And, these days, you have
> to do that on every supported OS (which doesn't mean "Windows"; it means
> each sub-version of Windows 7 separately, etc.), on every combination of
> hardware, including Intel vs. AMD processors, various graphics cards,
> various chipsets driving the buses, sound interfaces, various amounts of
> memory (and types, and speeds), etc. With all the driver versions that
> will be found in the field (especially relevant for video, sound, and
> disk drivers).
>
> That is, really truly billions of cases, many of which need specific
> hardware.

Yup.

But the reality is that almost nothing is tested. It's not as if billions of
paths are tested and the rest are neglected; it's more that only a few hundred
paths are tested, and everything else is ignored. Even things that are not
particularly hard to test are ignored. Sometimes it seems that anything that
compiles without errors is released immediately to manufacturing.

It's not that testing is impractical or mathematically imposible; it's just
that it's not profitable, and so software companies don't do it.

When you start up an application and it crashes within two minutes, there's an
overwhelming probability that even the most basic control paths through the
software were never tested, because it's statistically very improbable that
you would put the application through a highly improbable path in just two
minutes.

Ultimately, it's all about greed and irresponsibility.

> When I worked for DEC in the early 1980s, a new release of the TOPS-20
> OS would be developed for a few years, and then released to field-test
> where selected customers would run it in near-production use for around
> six months. And field test found errors fairly frequently -- even
> though they had done extensive testing internally, and even though the
> hardware was all made and sold by DEC (a much, much narrower environment
> than what software has to run in today). The problems of something like
> Vegas, today, are many orders of magnitude harder than that.

No, it's not harder, just not profitable. Mainframes are reliable because they
are exhaustively tested. Men went to the Moon thanks to exhaustive testing.
But ordinary desktop applications, including Vegas, are only very summarily
tested before being released.

> But any concept of "full" testing has been abandoned as impossible
> decades ago.

Not by responsible companies that want to build truly reliable software.

[Mxsmanic]

David Dyer-Bennet writes:

> They're behind the times. Most of the bugs reported against Windows 95
> weren't fixed in updates to Windows 95; they were only fixed in Windows
> 98.

It doesn't matter. The idea is to go from one stable release to another, and
to accomplish that, staying one release behind works very well.

It's part of the idiosyncrasy of many software companies that they'll update a
release until it's reasonably stable (i.e., until it is finally as stable as
it should have been to begin with), and then they'll immediately start working
on a new, unstable, bug-laden version.

[Steve King]

"ReverendFuzzy" <goo...@msbministries.org> wrote in message

news:b455e1fc-79f4-4644...@18g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

It was you, wasn't it. Okay, everybody. Get him!

Steve King

[Steve King]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4ti3i7p48kpmjcajp...@4ax.com...

Just generalities based on your gut, I suppose. Name a few specific
examples that you know to be factual. Not Internet rumor crap. Not what
your neighbor Charlie said, and Charile's in IT with a big company crap.
Mr. Dyer-Bennet has it right. Software companies make compromises of
product testing vs. profitability. If they go too far cutting corners in
testing, their product will be crap and people will stop buying it. If they
go too far in the other direction they will not make a profit; they will
lose money, and eventually go out of business. Staying in the sweet spot is
the name of the game in any business. Of course, the exception is to find a
product so exceptional in delivered benefits that you can afford to come as
close as humanly possible to fully testing it, load that product into
hardware you've also tested, then charge the huge bucks for it you have to
to be able to stay in business. NASA, anyone?

Steve King

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 1/26/2012, Mxsmanic posted:

> Software can usually be fully tested if enough time and effort is
> put into it.

This happens to be a tautology, similar to "you can do anything if you
try hard enough".

What's left to determine is whether it is physically or mathematically
possible to put enough time and effort into it in the first case, or to
try hard enough in the second case.

Care to provide proof?

[ReverendFuzzy]

On Jan 26, 5:59 pm, "Steve King"

eek! :-O

[Mxsmanic]

Steve King writes:

> Just generalities based on your gut, I suppose. Name a few specific
> examples that you know to be factual.

Essentially the BUNCH and their mainframes, for example. Mainframe users and
vendors have very different standards of reliability. Systems must run
continuously for months or years without any type of crash. And they do,
because they are designed that way and heavily tested, and changes are
incremental and conservative.

> Mr. Dyer-Bennet has it right. Software companies make compromises of
> product testing vs. profitability.

Desktop and server software vendors privilege profitability over testing and
reliability by a very wide margin.

> If they go too far cutting corners in testing, their product will be
> crap and people will stop buying it.

Most desktop applications and many server applications are crap, it's just
that users don't realize it. They think it's normal for stuff to crash and
contain bugs. They've been hoodwinked into thinking it's inevitable.

> If they go too far in the other direction they will not make a profit;
> they will lose money, and eventually go out of business.

So you admit that they could indeed test better and make reliable software
that does not crash.

> Staying in the sweet spot is the name of the game in any business.

In the desktop world, the sweet spot is congruent with highway robbery. The
server world is a little bit better, but still pales in comparison to
mainframes.

> Of course, the exception is to find a
> product so exceptional in delivered benefits that you can afford to come as
> close as humanly possible to fully testing it, load that product into
> hardware you've also tested, then charge the huge bucks for it you have to
> to be able to stay in business. NASA, anyone?

Avionics software is similar, because the consequences of killing someone with
a software bug outweigh the economic benefits of skipping testing.

[Mxsmanic]

Gene E. Bloch writes:

> This happens to be a tautology, similar to "you can do anything if you
> try hard enough".

Yes, but it disproves the assertion that software can never be fully tested. A
lot of software _can_ be fully tested.

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 1/26/2012, Mxsmanic posted:

It disproves nothing. It is a pronouncement that you made and a
tautology at that.

I admit that I have written programs that can be fully tested. Most of
them print "Hello, world."

[Mxsmanic]

Gene E. Bloch writes:

> I admit that I have written programs that can be fully tested. Most of
> them print "Hello, world."

It is also possible to test far more complex programs.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> writes:

> Steve King writes:
>
>> Just generalities based on your gut, I suppose. Name a few specific
>> examples that you know to be factual.
>
> Essentially the BUNCH and their mainframes, for example. Mainframe users and
> vendors have very different standards of reliability. Systems must run
> continuously for months or years without any type of crash. And they do,
> because they are designed that way and heavily tested, and changes are
> incremental and conservative.

Which is a much lower standard of reliability than phone switches and
internet routers. Which is why AT&T was one of the companies with the
best testing methodologies. And that software ran on a tremendously
narrow range of hardware, all made and sold by AT&T.

And they never seriously considered doing 'full testing' in the sense I
defined earlier. It's not feasible. It can't be done in the time
between the product being ready to start testing, and the product being
so obsolete it's of no use to anybody.

The TOPS-20 OS releases I talked about were for the 36-bit mainframe
line, which was knocking IBM out of accounts right and left where there
was any interest in interactive users. They worked hard to produce
quality software, and tested carefully, and field-tested. But nobody
had any delusions that every possible code path was being tested; that
just isn't feasible. Software is too complicated.

>> Mr. Dyer-Bennet has it right. Software companies make compromises of
>> product testing vs. profitability.
>
> Desktop and server software vendors privilege profitability over testing and
> reliability by a very wide margin.

Desktop at least; servers are a VERY different market.

>> If they go too far cutting corners in testing, their product will be
>> crap and people will stop buying it.
>
> Most desktop applications and many server applications are crap, it's just
> that users don't realize it. They think it's normal for stuff to crash and
> contain bugs. They've been hoodwinked into thinking it's inevitable.

Bugs are inevitable in anything complicated enough to be of any
interest.

>> If they go too far in the other direction they will not make a profit;
>> they will lose money, and eventually go out of business.
>
> So you admit that they could indeed test better and make reliable software
> that does not crash.

Nobody has suggested anything else!

>> Staying in the sweet spot is the name of the game in any business.
>
> In the desktop world, the sweet spot is congruent with highway robbery. The
> server world is a little bit better, but still pales in comparison to
> mainframes.

Mainframes are much much simpler, is a lot of it, of course.

>> Of course, the exception is to find a
>> product so exceptional in delivered benefits that you can afford to come as
>> close as humanly possible to fully testing it, load that product into
>> hardware you've also tested, then charge the huge bucks for it you have to
>> to be able to stay in business. NASA, anyone?
>
> Avionics software is similar, because the consequences of killing someone with
> a software bug outweigh the economic benefits of skipping testing.

I worked specifically in the testing group for the Honeywell GPS
groundstation. Lots of FAA standards, lots of resources, lots of smart
people working hard. But still, nobody had any belief that we were
doing "complete testing", even though the entire software and hardware
configuration was completely under our control.

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 1/26/2012, Mxsmanic posted:

Have you ever considered understanding a joke?

[Mxsmanic]

David Dyer-Bennet writes:

> Which is a much lower standard of reliability than phone switches and
> internet routers.

Yes.

> Which is why AT&T was one of the companies with the best testing
> methodologies.

Yes. And their Western Electric subsidiary was legendary for the reliability
of the hardware it built as well.

> And that software ran on a tremendously
> narrow range of hardware, all made and sold by AT&T.

It would have been more expensive to do broader testing.

> And they never seriously considered doing 'full testing' in the sense I
> defined earlier. It's not feasible. It can't be done in the time
> between the product being ready to start testing, and the product being
> so obsolete it's of no use to anybody.

AT&T didn't have problems with obsolescence when it was the only game in town,
so it could take its time rolling out new hardware and software.

> The TOPS-20 OS releases I talked about were for the 36-bit mainframe
> line, which was knocking IBM out of accounts right and left where there
> was any interest in interactive users. They worked hard to produce
> quality software, and tested carefully, and field-tested. But nobody
> had any delusions that every possible code path was being tested; that
> just isn't feasible. Software is too complicated.

How often did TOPS-20 crash in the field?

> Desktop at least; servers are a VERY different market.

They are, but some of the carelessness of desktops still leaks over to
servers, depending on how much previous desktop experience the source of the
software has. Microsoft, for example, has a very poor grasp of the importance
of testing and reliability, and UNIX came from an environment with a much more
casual attitude towards reliability than the mainframe world (albeit a greater
concern than desktop vendors had).

> Bugs are inevitable in anything complicated enough to be of any
> interest.

Why do refrigerators run for decades, then? And locomotives? And aircraft? And
ships?

> Mainframes are much much simpler, is a lot of it, of course.

Nothing requires that desktops be complex. Mainframe operating systems are
simpler because it improves performance, and it's easier to maintain, and it's
easier to test.

> I worked specifically in the testing group for the Honeywell GPS
> groundstation. Lots of FAA standards, lots of resources, lots of smart
> people working hard. But still, nobody had any belief that we were
> doing "complete testing", even though the entire software and hardware
> configuration was completely under our control.

How often did failures occur in the field? And how many endangered safety of
life?

[Mxsmanic]

Gene E. Bloch writes:

> Have you ever considered understanding a joke?

Poor reliabiliy in software is not a joke. It's a pox on society.

[Gavino]

"Gene E. Bloch" <bloc...@someplace.invalid> wrote in message
news:9oe8uo...@mid.individual.net...

As the famous computer scientist Edsger Dijkstra said, testing can only show
the presence of bugs, not their absence.

However, testing is only one part of ensuring bug-free software.
In development of high integrity systems (where bugs can cost lives), as
much effort (or more) is put into ensuring (and where possible
mathematically proving) correctness at all stages of the development cycle,
an approach you might call 'correctness by construction'.
See http://www.altran-praxis.com/cbyc.aspx for some real industrial
examples.

Of course, it's not usually cost-effective to go to these lengths for
consumer software, but it shows that it is possible.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>
>> Which is a much lower standard of reliability than phone switches and
>> internet routers.
>
> Yes.
>
>> Which is why AT&T was one of the companies with the best testing
>> methodologies.
>
> Yes. And their Western Electric subsidiary was legendary for the reliability
> of the hardware it built as well.
>
>> And that software ran on a tremendously
>> narrow range of hardware, all made and sold by AT&T.
>
> It would have been more expensive to do broader testing.

It certainly would have.

>> And they never seriously considered doing 'full testing' in the sense I
>> defined earlier. It's not feasible. It can't be done in the time
>> between the product being ready to start testing, and the product being
>> so obsolete it's of no use to anybody.
>
> AT&T didn't have problems with obsolescence when it was the only game in town,
> so it could take its time rolling out new hardware and software.

I was next to a group working with a Canadian company to do competitive
phone switch development, much later -- 1990s. But not actually working
on that one.

>> The TOPS-20 OS releases I talked about were for the 36-bit mainframe
>> line, which was knocking IBM out of accounts right and left where there
>> was any interest in interactive users. They worked hard to produce
>> quality software, and tested carefully, and field-tested. But nobody
>> had any delusions that every possible code path was being tested; that
>> just isn't feasible. Software is too complicated.
>
> How often did TOPS-20 crash in the field?

Well...a lot less often when you got rid of the back-door core memory,
which didn't get adequate cooling airflow. On bad days on that
particular system, several times a day. On good weeks, it could go
months.

>> Desktop at least; servers are a VERY different market.
>
> They are, but some of the carelessness of desktops still leaks over to
> servers, depending on how much previous desktop experience the source of the
> software has. Microsoft, for example, has a very poor grasp of the importance
> of testing and reliability, and UNIX came from an environment with a much more
> casual attitude towards reliability than the mainframe world (albeit a greater
> concern than desktop vendors had).

The underlying OS is converging there, that's true. Only BSD isn't
focusing on desktop as at least one target.

>> Bugs are inevitable in anything complicated enough to be of any
>> interest.
>
> Why do refrigerators run for decades, then? And locomotives? And aircraft? And
> ships?

Ships and locomotives and aircraft don't, not without expert attention
every few dozen to few hundred hours. And they're all much much simpler
than a modern computer.

>> Mainframes are much much simpler, is a lot of it, of course.
>
> Nothing requires that desktops be complex. Mainframe operating systems are
> simpler because it improves performance, and it's easier to maintain, and it's
> easier to test.

They're simple because they're old, and they're mostly kept around to
run old software. New software is nearly all developed for other
environments, which focus on using the users' time effectively instead
of conserving expensive computer resources.

>> I worked specifically in the testing group for the Honeywell GPS
>> groundstation. Lots of FAA standards, lots of resources, lots of smart
>> people working hard. But still, nobody had any belief that we were
>> doing "complete testing", even though the entire software and hardware
>> configuration was completely under our control.
>
> How often did failures occur in the field? And how many endangered safety of
> life?

We were in field test when I got a real job offer and moved on. No
safety-endangering incidents while I was there that I can recall.

[David Ruether]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:

9ib1i7trclahcv077...@4ax.com:
> Brian writes:

> > Power Director has been number one in the top 10 video editors on some
> > sites for a while. I think the reason why its popular is that its easy to
> > use and also entertaining with its many bells and whistles such as the fun
> > transitions. But it does lack in features that a pro is more likely to use.

> How often do pros use fun transitions?

And how often do they prefer high-quality output over fast
render/export speed...?;-)
--DR

[Brian]

What they need is a system where they will pay anyone that finds a bug in
the program then all the users will be busy trying to find faults in the
program.

One advanage of making a program freeware is that you are not responiable
for bugs in tne program
.
--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

There is always going to be the problem of someone using a combination of
options in the program that most people don't use.
I feel the main problem is not being able to test the program with
different hardware. Some video hardware might not work with the program.

If you are a person writing programs to sell on your own when you may not
be able to afford to have many computers with different operating systems
to try out your program. This is where beta testers come in useful.

I've noticed that software companies such as Microsoft are starting to
listen to the customer more when there are bugs in the program or there is
some feature lacking.

--
Regards Brian

[Mxsmanic]

David Dyer-Bennet writes:

> Well...a lot less often when you got rid of the back-door core memory,
> which didn't get adequate cooling airflow. On bad days on that
> particular system, several times a day. On good weeks, it could go
> months.

But that was hardware, right?

> The underlying OS is converging there, that's true. Only BSD isn't
> focusing on desktop as at least one target.

Well, FreeBSD developers seem to actively fantasize that FreeBSD is a desktop
OS, and I have clashed with them over that many times. No version of UNIX is a
suitable desktop OS in comparison to Windows. And before you mention the Mac,
remember that it has a huge, huge amount of code on top of anything that
resembles UNIX.

> Ships and locomotives and aircraft don't, not without expert attention
> every few dozen to few hundred hours.

Actually, they don't require that much attention, especially ships and trains.
One of the advantages of trains, in fact, is that the rolling stock requires
very little attention. Aircraft do require attention, but many will still fly
even if neglected, especially smaller, older aircraft.

> And they're all much much simpler than a modern computer.

Are they? An aircraft carrier or an A380 is simpler than a computer?

> They're simple because they're old, and they're mostly kept around to
> run old software.

In the old days, people still cared about performance. It's not a bad thing to
be old and simple, despite what many kids in IT think.

> New software is nearly all developed for other
> environments, which focus on using the users' time effectively instead
> of conserving expensive computer resources.

Not so. New software is being developed for mainframes all the time, and they
still do 75% of the business computer processing in the world. There are most
likely several trillion lines of COBOL out there still, and new software is
still being written in the language.

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> What they need is a system where they will pay anyone that finds a bug in
> the program then all the users will be busy trying to find faults in the
> program.

The problem is that vendors are not interested in finding or fixing bugs. Once
they've sold the software, they couldn't care less about bugs, and in fact
finding and fixing bugs just costs them money. There's thus a conflict of
interest. It's more profitable to throw software out onto the market no matter
how many bugs it contains than it is to test and fix software. The only way to
change this is to hold software companies responsible for their mistakes.

If an engineering defect in a car kills someone, people can go to jail. If a
software bug kills someone, the software vendor will just repeat the "it's too
complicated to test" mantra, and people will believe it.

> One advanage of making a program freeware is that you are not responiable
> for bugs in tne program

You could still be sued. If you wrote a safey-of-life freeware application
(not very likely, of course), and somebody died due to a bug, someone could
easily sue you, or worse.

Besides, commercial software vendors try to disclaim all responsibility for
everything except a scratch on the CD, so they claim that they are not
responsible for bugs, either.